Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 9:57 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

PolyMedix, Inc. Message Board

  • jmrhegupta01 jmrhegupta01 Jul 26, 2010 4:47 AM Flag

    Here is some new info.

    Hey Everyone,

    Here is some new info. regarding the bacterial research and plastics (and some added info. as they "are looking for partnerships).

    Check it out at this new article.
    Novel Plastics Kill Bacteria on Contact

    By Richard Scott, Ph.D., Vice President of Research, PolyMedix

    http://www.imakenews.com/kcprofessional/e_article000998841.cfm?x

    KIMBERLY-CLARK PROFESSIONAL*: Novel Plastics Kill Bacteria on Contact

    Try typing in the website to bring it up....I'm having difficulty in getting the link to work.

    MG

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • no worries

    • I agree. The Canadian data could conceivably undercut my rhetorical point.

    • Bio, one way to possibly address your question in a small way is to find out how the patients in Canada fared. I realize its a small sample size but at a minimum it partially answers the question.

    • Also, to add, the cure measure is not a measure of bacteria being killed in the blood stream.

      It can take time for the body to heal. Just like when you put an ice on something. It will stop the swelling, but the body needs to get rid of the fluid already there.

      So, technically ICE does not cure on the first day.

    • You said, "One minute the results were awful, the next they are too good to be believed?"

      My initial post on this thread was in response to Falconer's quoted assertion. My question was designed to show the fallacy of his claim (and the company's).

      I ask you, if the mechanism of action is so revolutionary, why were the results more or less in line with the current standard of care? I think that is suspicious. I think that the fact that more than 95% of the patient trial data came from Russia/Ukraine is suspicious. Don't these facts worry you?

      What evidence can you offer that should give investors confidence in the company's claim that they have not just 1 but 2 revolutionary products that have eluded the entire BP industry?

      (You assume malevolent motives on my part. But the company's claims, if true, would indeed be revolutionary. Why not take up the challenge and offer compelling evidence rather than attack me for being skeptical?)

    • "biotechinvest"or:

      Here is ome basic science for you....hope you understand it: (courtesy of forester):

      There are many factors that come together and influence the availability (i.e concentration) of the drug at the infection site. Not all drugs behave the same way due to membrane permeability restrictions (i.e. lipid solubility, electronegativity, binding to blood proteins such as albumin or active or passive membrane uptake mechanisms), blood supply to the infected area (can't get the drug there well with poor peripheral circulation), tissue acidosis ( i.e. pH can influence how well the drug can dissolve through the cell membrane by moving to or away from it's pKa), and a few more which I won't bore you with. I'm sure a lot of the animal data and phase one data mapped out the potential road blocks or detours the drug could encounter, but this doesn't sub for use in the clinical setting. Just remember that with any antibiotic...it must cross multiple barriers in the human body to be effective. It would be pure folly to believe that an antibiotic would reach near 100% cure in all patients....that would be defying the laws of nature and physics. Poly's data looks good on face value.....trial data even from Russia/Ukraine doesn't disqualify the results out of hand so long as the controls were good.

    • Opinions are like ... H...s, everybody has one!

      Thank for yours, now since you have no stock or don't plan on getting any, then go play golf or just sit on the corner and bother old ladies with your opinions as they pass by.

      Tim

    • One minute the results were awful, the next they are too good to be believed?

      You are ridiculous.

      1/3 of FDA data comes from the Ukaraine. Where do you think your going to get infections of sufficient size? Not in the west "Biotech investor."

      Go Foment elsewhere, your not needed here.

    • My opinion is that PYMX's claims are too good to be true.

      I think the trial results are not reliable. They are suspiciously similar to Cubicin's. PYMX relied on trial data that was more than 95% sourced from Russia/Ukraine but tried to create the impression that significant data would come from Canada. This little BB company claims revolutionary trechnology that has managed to elude every other BP company in the world. But when faced with the above anomalies and the extremely low probability of success, Falconer and the like assert that success is a virtual certainty.

      (I have never had any position in PYMX either long or short and almost certainly never will.)

    • This posting says it all, in clear detail.

      The trial was not a failure; the advantages of PMX-30063 are clear and significant.

      And as I mentioned in a previous post, there is now the first instance of daptomycin resistance. PMX-30063 is superior in every regard. The adverse events of the trial are insignificant.

      --Falconer66a

    • View More Messages
 
PYMXQ
0.020.00(0.00%)Jul 22 9:52 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Puma Biotechnology, Inc.
NYSEThu, Jul 24, 2014 4:02 PM EDT
Baidu, Inc.
NasdaqGSThu, Jul 24, 2014 4:00 PM EDT